Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Texas *** Marriage Ban UnconstitutionalFollow

#102 Mar 05 2014 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I understand perfectly why people wish to grant those benefits to *** couples. I disagree that we should. Those are completely different things. My argument largely revolves around the fact that the cost to society if same *** couples don't marry is significantly lower than the cost to society if opposite *** couples don't. The question is not "how does it hurt you if a *** couple marries?". It's "how does it hurt you if they don't?".

The social effects of marriage show no indication of being tied to sexual orientation, and primarily revolve around stability for children, the increased stability of two income households in times of stress, etc. Not rocket science. There's certainly an argument that there is no benefit to legally codifying cohabitation. There is no valid argument that there is a benefit to codifying hetro cohabitation but not SSM. This isn't new ground, been endlessly thrashed out in court cases and academia for decades now.


Now rewrite that, but eliminate benefits that only apply to the couple themselves versus benefits that apply to the rest of society.


The statistical deltas for the outcomes of children based on whether their parents were married when the children were born is massive. Those deltas affect whether those children grow up to be productive members of society, or whether they end out being in and out of jail, so it's of interest to society as a whole. Additionally, those deltas aren't nearly as large based on if they are raised by a married couple. It's the actual legal status of your parents when you were born that matters the most. This is why it's not about benefit for people raising children. It's about having parents in a legally binding marriage when they produce children. This is incredibly relevant to opposite *** couples, and completely irrelevant to same *** couples. Surely you can see why?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103 Mar 05 2014 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
The other encourages people to form into relationships most beneficial to raising children *if* they reproduce. That's a pretty important distinction.
Except that hetero couples who genetically can't breed still get the benefits, so the encouragement actually isn't about having kids. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't the first time you trotted that line out so it really isn't any more now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 Mar 05 2014 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers
I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?
You constantly make a "slipperly slope" argument equating them, yes.


Um... No. I don't. If for no other reason than slippery slope arguments don't actually involve equating the two ends of the slope.

Quote:
On top of being a horrible American and human being, try not to be a liar, too.


There's some serious irony there.

gbaji wrote:
Ehcks wrote:
This thread is confusing.

Almalieque.. You're arguing against *** marriage because you disagree with age of consent laws?


I believe the argument is that if you change marriage to remove the restriction that it consist of one man and one woman, that there's no reason not to also remove the requirement that both be adults. Which, while actually valid, is kinda strange since in some states (most states in the US in fact), you don't have to be an adult to get married anyway (but must have parental permission if under the age of consent for that state).


The basic premise is reasonable though. Yes. It's a slippery slope, but I think it's overly simplistic to just point at the words being changed and presume that the rest of the words can't also be changed for similar reasons. The core "change" that *** marriage creates is the idea that marriage is no longer something that some people should or must do as responsible adults, but something that people have a right to have. Once you make changes based on labeling it a "right", it's suddenly much much harder to prevent the next group that feels disenfranchised from also claiming that they're being unfairly discriminated against by not being allowed the same right as *** and straight couples.


While concepts of beastiality and object-marriage might be a bit farther out, I can definitely see polygamy/polyany and a whole assortment of variant marriage concepts like extended extended marriages (with multiple husbands and wives) for example. There's no argument for *** marriage that doesn't equally apply for those other types of relationships. Since you've removed the limitation of marriage from being about two people potentially creating a child together to two people forming a loving relationship, the next obvious question is: "Why only two?".

It's kinda hard to find any argument against such things that doesn't work or fail (depending on your position) equally to those against *** marriage.

GFY
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#105 Mar 05 2014 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
hahaha :rimshot:
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#106 Mar 05 2014 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
99% of marriage benefits aren't to "encourage" anything. ****, probably 100% but I'll leave allowances for error.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Mar 05 2014 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
99% of marriage benefits aren't to "encourage" anything. ****, probably 100% but I'll leave allowances for error.

They probably encourage divorce tbh. But I don't feel like looking up the stats on that.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#108gbaji, Posted: Mar 05 2014 at 9:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yup. Hence the "if". We're dealing with social statistics here, not individual cases. We can say with certainty that out of the entire set of all couples consisting of one man and one woman, some number of them greater than zero will will result in a pregnancy as a consequence of their sexual activity every single year. We can also say that out of the entire set of couples consisting of two people of the same ***, not one of them will result in a pregnancy as a consequence of their sexual activity. Therefore, we have a reason to encourage all couples in the first set to marry, and zero reason to encourage any of the couples in the second set to do so.
#109 Mar 05 2014 at 9:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers
I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?
You constantly make a "slipperly slope" argument equating them, yes.


Um... No. I don't. If for no other reason than slippery slope arguments don't actually involve equating the two ends of the slope.

Quote:
On top of being a horrible American and human being, try not to be a liar, too.


There's some serious irony there.

gbaji wrote:
Ehcks wrote:
This thread is confusing.

Almalieque.. You're arguing against *** marriage because you disagree with age of consent laws?


I believe the argument is that if you change marriage to remove the restriction that it consist of one man and one woman, that there's no reason not to also remove the requirement that both be adults. Which, while actually valid, is kinda strange since in some states (most states in the US in fact), you don't have to be an adult to get married anyway (but must have parental permission if under the age of consent for that state).


The basic premise is reasonable though. Yes. It's a slippery slope, but I think it's overly simplistic to just point at the words being changed and presume that the rest of the words can't also be changed for similar reasons. The core "change" that *** marriage creates is the idea that marriage is no longer something that some people should or must do as responsible adults, but something that people have a right to have. Once you make changes based on labeling it a "right", it's suddenly much much harder to prevent the next group that feels disenfranchised from also claiming that they're being unfairly discriminated against by not being allowed the same right as *** and straight couples.


While concepts of beastiality and object-marriage might be a bit farther out, I can definitely see polygamy/polyany and a whole assortment of variant marriage concepts like extended extended marriages (with multiple husbands and wives) for example. There's no argument for *** marriage that doesn't equally apply for those other types of relationships. Since you've removed the limitation of marriage from being about two people potentially creating a child together to two people forming a loving relationship, the next obvious question is: "Why only two?".

It's kinda hard to find any argument against such things that doesn't work or fail (depending on your position) equally to those against *** marriage.

GFY



Wow. Reading comprehension really has gone downhill.

Let me simplify this for you. A slippery slope argument, by definition, not only does not equate the two things at the ends of the slope, but in fact rests on the assumption that they are different. That's the whole point of the form of argument. You point at something that people don't view as bad/harmful/whatever, and say that it'll lead to something else that is. If the first thing was bad, you wouldn't need to use a slippery slope.

When someone argues that if we legalize pot it may lead to legalization of other harder drugs down the line, they are absolutely *not* saying that pot is as bad as those other drugs. Claiming the other person compared pot to heroin is a ridiculous response and completely misses the point of the first persons argument.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Mar 05 2014 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're basically arguing that since not all cars will get flat tires, then there's no point spending money equipping your car with a spare tire unless you also equip your boat with one.
Wow, another bad car analogy that ignores the actual point. Didn't see that coming.

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 10:50pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111gbaji, Posted: Mar 05 2014 at 9:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I disagree. There is no reason to create state marriage statuses except to encourage couples to marry within those statuses. Note, I'm not saying that people wouldn't get married in the absence of the state status (in fact, I'm arguing that everyone, including *** couples are always free to do that if they want). I'm saying that fewer would enter into marriages which meet the set of legal conditions and enforceability which the state wants them to. That's why they exist.
#112 Mar 05 2014 at 9:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're basically arguing that since not all cars will get flat tires, then there's no point spending money equipping your car with a spare tire unless you also equip your boat with one.
Wow, another bad car analogy that ignores the actual point. Didn't see that coming.


Wow. Another pointless response that adds nothing to the discussion. Didn't see that coming either!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Mar 05 2014 at 10:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
There is no reason to create state marriage statuses except to encourage couples to marry within those statuses

Of course there is. Marriage benefits were created primarily to benefit people currently married at the time they were created. Transferring Social Security benefits (to pick a random example) wasn't enacted to encourage marriage, it was enacted because currently married people wanted access to their spouse's benefits. No grandiose "Let's think of the future couples!" bullsh*t, just plain and simple "I want mine so pass a law to make sure I get it".

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 10:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Mar 05 2014 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Another pointless response that adds nothing to the discussion.
You're not adding anything to the discussion, so why should I?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#115 Mar 06 2014 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There is no reason to create state marriage statuses except to encourage couples to marry within those statuses

Of course there is. Marriage benefits were created primarily to benefit people currently married at the time they were created. Transferring Social Security benefits (to pick a random example) wasn't enacted to encourage marriage, it was enacted because currently married people wanted access to their spouse's benefits. No grandiose "Let's think of the future couples!" bullsh*t, just plain and simple "I want mine so pass a law to make sure I get it".
It doesn't work that way. You have to get married to have kids, and having kids is why you need to get married. We need to encourage people to have kids. Everything else is secondary and liberal bloat added to water down what marriage should be about. Kids, kids, kids.

Won't somebody please think of the children?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#116 Mar 06 2014 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts
No, I don't. Why? My point is that my position isn't based on liking or disliking "homeowners". In this specific case, it's about making it easier to own a home. We clearly believe that society is better off having more people owning their own homes, than fewer. Ergo, it makes sense to make owning a home easier. It's not about liking or disliking homeowners. That's silly.

I don't believe that. Do you believe that? Society is better off with more people owning homes? Why?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#117gbaji, Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 7:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That makes no sense though. Why create the benefits then? Again, it's not about whether the group that receives it would like it and benefit from it. Because that's always going to be true. I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military? I think it's kinda obvious that the objective is to get people to serve and not to just hand out free education. Cause if it was the latter, they'd give it to everyone, right? Same logic here. If the objective was just to help people out with these benefits, they'd not attach them to whether a couple was married. Clearly, the intent is to get people to marry.
#118 Mar 06 2014 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119gbaji, Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 7:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... You're really asking that question? You'd be hard pressed to find any social policy organization in the last half century who would argue otherwise. Most argue vehemently that the most important difference between those stuck in poverty and those who succeed is the opportunity for home ownership. Now some have gone too far with this and caused the whole housing bubble, but the basic idea is true. If it's at all possible for someone to spend their housing dollars on buying a home rather than renting, that person's fortunes and the fortunes of his children and grandchildren will be affected for the better.
#120 Mar 06 2014 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.


Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Mar 06 2014 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.


Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Which is transferable to a spouse, unless the spouse is same ***. So, hosed out of a marriage benefit that has nothing to do with kids.

Holy sh*t, you're slow.


Edited, Mar 6th 2014 7:00pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#122 Mar 06 2014 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.
Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Faulty logic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#123 Mar 06 2014 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What other reason could there be?

Smiley: laugh

Right on, then.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124 Mar 06 2014 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.


Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Which is transferable to a spouse, unless the spouse is same ***.


Which again does not change the fact that the college education is an incentive to get people to serve in the military.

At least try to follow the logic here. Similarly, marriage benefits, including the transfer of said college education, are incentives to get people to marry. See, if you marry that soldier instead of just shacking up with him, you will qualify for the college credit if he chooses not to take it himself. That's an incentive to get people to marry.

Get it?

So now that we've accepted that marriage benefits are an incentive to marry, we should then ask "why do we care if people marry or not?". Which is where I started this whole line of reasoning prior to Joph running of on his ridiculous "but the benefits aren't an incentive!" tangent. They are incentives. Period.


Quote:
So, hosed out of a marriage benefit that has nothing to to with kids.



You honestly can't noodle out that the primary reason we might want to encourage soldiers and their SOs to marry instead of just shacking up might just have something to do with children? Really? O... M... G...!


Quote:
Holy sh*t, you're slow.


I'm slow? It's like upside down world or something. Engage the brain. Think! I'm begging you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Mar 06 2014 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
So we only let the straights get benefits to lure them into getting married, and we don't give those benefits to the gays because they're not married, but we don't let them get married because they want benefits that comes with being married and we can't give those benefits to just anyone!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 Mar 06 2014 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why does the GI bill only pay for college education for people who serve in the military?
Soldiers can choose to pass the GI Bill to their spouses or children.
Which is still a reward for the soldier serving. Otherwise, we'd just give free college education to everyone, right?
Faulty logic.


How is that faulty logic? If the objective was purely about providing people with college educations, we'd just give them to everyone. By giving it to someone who serves, it's pretty clearly about encouraging people to serve. That's pretty darn straightforward.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#127 Mar 06 2014 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
How is that faulty logic?
Sorry, I meant faulty opinion. My mistake.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#128gbaji, Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 8:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I already answered this question. You're intentionally muddling the issue. One step at a time. Once we accept that marriage benefits exist to encourage people to marry, the next question is "why do we want people to marry?".
#129 Mar 06 2014 at 8:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How is that faulty logic?
Sorry, I meant faulty opinion. My mistake.


Ah... I see. So it's good logic, and you have no counter for it, but you still need to call it "faulty". Got it! Whatever makes you sleep better at night, I guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Mar 06 2014 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
But, as I've said repeatedly,.
And it was as faulty an opinion the first time as it is now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Mar 06 2014 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Got it.
More productive to show others where the holes in the wall are than to explain to the wall why those holes shouldn't be there.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#132 Mar 06 2014 at 8:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But, as I've said repeatedly,.
And it was as faulty an opinion the first time as it is now.


But we've now established that your definition of "faulty" is meaningless, so who cares what you think?

Oh. For example: Are you actually arguing that *** couples can accidentally get pregnant as a consequence of their own sexual activity? Cause that's about as "faulty" as it gets, right?

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 6:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Mar 06 2014 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ah... I see. So it's good logic, and you have no counter for it, but you still need to call it "faulty". Got it! Whatever makes you sleep better at night, I guess.

What makes me sleep better is knowing that SSM is coming along faster than anyone would have predicted.

That said, the point where you asked "But why would we give it them?" was so adorably naive and ignorant of politics that I realized the debate wasn't worth having.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Mar 06 2014 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
But we've now established that your definition of "faulty" is meaningless, so who cares what you think?
More faulty opinions, but go on.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#135 Mar 06 2014 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Oh. For example: Are you actually arguing that *** couples can accidentally get pregnant as a consequence of their own sexual activity?]
More faulty opinions to bury the old ones. Good job, I agree with me, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#136gbaji, Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 8:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yup. Your head is so far into the identity politics mode that you're criticizing a legitimate question. Why give it to them? Why not give it to everyone? Do you not understand this? It's not about being for or against *** people, it's about having some kind of consistent and rational methodology for determining how we use the power and influence of our government beyond "demonize anyone who questions what we want to do".
#137 Mar 06 2014 at 8:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. For example: Are you actually arguing that *** couples can accidentally get pregnant as a consequence of their own sexual activity?]
More faulty opinions to bury the old ones. Good job, I agree with me, too.


So no desire to actually address the subject at hand? Thought so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Mar 06 2014 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
And once you do that, you've more or less tossed logic and reason.
So, just like you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#139 Mar 06 2014 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
So no desire to actually address the subject at hand?
Already did. You ignored it.
gbaji wrote:
Thought so
Another faulty opinion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#140 Mar 06 2014 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So it's not about it being a smart thing to do, or a useful thing to do, but you're happy anyway? Why? Because it makes a great wedge issue?

I've said numerous times why I think it's a benefit and a good idea. If I thought it was just a great wedge issue, I wouldn't want it to come along since once it's solved there's no longer an issue.

Quote:
Yup. Your head is so far into the identity politics mode that you're criticizing a legitimate question.

Well, that's one theory. Another, more accurate one, would be that I'm just amused at how ignorant you are at how politics work in general. Not partisan politics or identity politics but just politics. How things get done. Your question by itself displays this so it makes me laugh and realize that the debate isn't really worth having because you don't even have the basic foundation yet to discuss it like an adult.

Quote:
But hey! You'll "win", right? Grats, I guess...

Many thanks. Very gracious of you Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 Mar 06 2014 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
You honestly can't noodle out that the primary reason we might want to encourage soldiers and their SOs to marry instead of just shacking up might just have something to do with children? Really? O... M... G...!

Oh, I see. If I disagree with your assessment of why marriage laws are the way they are it's because I'm too stupid to figure it out.

Chug a bucket of syphilitic slugs, you cnut.

____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#142 Mar 06 2014 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
Oooo sneaking in a bad word Google is going to come after you.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#143 Mar 06 2014 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
Oh, I see. If I disagree with your assessment of why marriage laws are the way they are it's because I'm too stupid to figure it out.

That's okay, apparently thinking SSM is a good idea is only to "demonize" the other side.

I'm guessing Gbaji climbed up on that cross to escape all the gays on the ground.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Mar 06 2014 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
I'm guessing Gbaji climbed up on that cross to escape all the gays on the ground.

...and risk a panty pic?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#145 Mar 07 2014 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts
Um... You're really asking that question? You'd be hard pressed to find any social policy organization in the last half century who would argue otherwise.

Nope.
Most argue vehemently that the most important difference between those stuck in poverty and those who succeed is the opportunity for home ownership.

False. What a crazy ******** idea. "If only we could get these catastrophically poor people into a loan for an overvalued home that they can't afford, THEN we might get some where."

No one has thought this, ever.

Now some have gone too far with this and caused the whole housing bubble, but the basic idea is true.

The housing bubble HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES. NOTHING

Let it sink it. It's a ludicrous "blame the poor people" fallacy that's never been even vaguely close to true. 93% of housing defaults tied to toxic mortgage securities were from homes that were not the owners primary residence.


If it's at all possible for someone to spend their housing dollars on buying a home rather than renting, that person's fortunes and the fortunes of his children and grandchildren will be affected for the better.


Nope.



How does that help society as a whole?


It doesn't. It helps banks.


Lower crime. More responsibility. People who own rather than rent are much less likely to engage in vandalism and a host of other forms of crime. They're much more likely to be gainfully employed. Most importantly, when we get to second generation effects, they are less subject to a "wage slave" state. Owning property means that housing costs are much lower for successive generations. Losing a job when you own a home outright is bad, but not nearly as bad as if you are renting (or still buying). You have many more options, and can afford to take a lower paying job in the meantime rather than be "stuck" in a "must earn X dollars or not work at all" situation.


The benefits across the board for greater home ownership within a society are pretty significant. While I'm not surprised that you'd oppose it (cause your ideology more or less requires people remain as poor as possible), I am surprised you'd be so blatant about your opposition. I kinda expected you to be a bit more coy about it.


The reason I'm so "blatant" about my opinion is that it's based on data, not a wild guess and what I saw on "Meet The Press" twenty years ago and sort of vaguely remember.

The Home Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction is pointless and basically a gift to the upper middle class. It should be eliminated and the dependent deduction increased for people below certain income thresholds.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#146 Mar 07 2014 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
gbaji lost scholar?

I'm actually kind of sad about that.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#147 Mar 07 2014 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Weird, everyone keeps saying that but he still shows up the same as always on my screen. Must be cached, I guess.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#148 Mar 07 2014 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
He's on the cusp, so he's bouncing back and forth.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#149 Mar 07 2014 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I assume he's on the cusp and the sheer number of his posts make "the cusp" a fairly broad line.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#150 Mar 07 2014 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think that was the forum's quota of the word "cusp" for the day.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Mar 07 2014 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts

The statistical deltas for the outcomes of children based on whether their parents were married when the children were born is massive.


Nope, doesn't matter at all. Keep guessing though, you're bound to get one right eventually. I do love that your statement correlates directly to "may parents were married when my mom got pregnant but got divorced when I was a day old. Obviously this had huge benefits for me"

The ONLY way to attempt to make some sort of "children are better off with birth parents" argument is to ignore all other variables. Children are better off in financially secure homes being raised by people who love them and who will make efforts to be involved in child raising. Outcomes are worst for single parent families, poor families, families with disinterested parents, etc. More poor kids born to unmarried mothers go to jail because more poor kids go to jail. Wealth children born to single mothers do just fine. It's about security and safety. Infants don't give a **** about marriage. They're form secure attachments to 10 people dressed as minotaurs so long as they take breaks from maze haunting and spend time with the infant.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CST
angrymnk, lolgaxe, Anonymous Guests (38)